At 07:21 -0800 2001-02-26, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>Like it or not, Unicode is the property of the Unicode Consortium and its
>members, not ordinary people.
The character set is also the property of the International
Organization for Standardization.
>Personally, I think the PUA is a wonderful compromise. I know a linguist
>who is helping a minority language group - population probably under 1,000
>- in literacy and related efforts. He has experimented with a novel
>character to indicate certain tones. It's not clear now whether his
>invention is a good idea or not, and whether it will stick or not. This
>kind of thing does not yet deserve to be encoded - not until its use is
>well established. In the mean time, the whole world doesn't need to know
>that he has encoded his character in a certain way. On the other hand, he
>does need some way to encode his character, and he needs to be able to do
>it without redefining a codepoint to which his software and fonts already
>attibutes certain meaning and properties. He also needs a way to
>interchange data with others with whom he works. The PUA as currently
>defined does exactly what he needs.
Definitely so. We are looking at using the PUA for test
implementations for Blissymbolics and SignWriting for just the same
reason. So we can prove that our model is correct and that it works.
-- Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Mob +353 86 807 9169 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Vox +353 1 478 2597 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT